WOOCHER

"Jewish Survivalism" as Communal Ideology: An Empirical Assessment Jonathan S. Woocher Hornstein Program in Jewish Communal Service, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts

The ideology of "Jewish survivalism" does lead the Jewish community to "turn inward." That turning inward need not, however, be an exercise either in self-centeredness or narcissism if the full dimensions of the challenges of survival in the contemporary world are understood and embraced.

In recent years, observers of American appears, indeed, to be the reigning ideology Jewish communal life have noted with in Jewish communal life, the frame of increasing frequency what some have values, perceptions, emotions, and norma­ called a "turning inward " on the part of the tive prescriptions within which the com­ community and its leadership.1 This munal enterprise is conducted and legiti­ "inward turn" has found expression in a mated. Within this frame, Jewish survival greater attentiveness on the part of com­ is defined as the community's raison d'etre, munal organizations and agencies specifi­ and those activities and institutions which cally to Jewish needs and concerns, and in a can most forcefully and directly assert a diminution in communal activism in the claim to be promoting Jewish survival are areas of non-sectarian services and pro­ placed at the forefront of the Jewish com­ gramming and promotion of general civic munal agenda.2 welfare. The rationale for this reorienta­ The ascendancy of "Jewish survivalism" tion has been provided by a heightened as the operative ideology of Jewish organi­ concern for "Jewish survival"in the face of zational life has been hailed as the begin­ the demonstrably corrosive effects of as­ ning of a new era in American Jewish life, similation on Jewish identity and com­ but it has also not been without its critics. munal affiliation in the United States and Before attempting to assess the merits of the persistent threats to Jewish com­ "survivalism" as an ideology, however, it munities in other parts of the world. might be useful to address some empirical Unquestionably, the historical experience questions about its scope and actual of the Jewish people in the 20th century— implications for communal functioning the Holocaust and the apparently un­ and Jewish self-definition. Assuming that ending and even increasing isolation of "Jewish survivalism" has become the Israel in the world community—has con­ ideology of American Jewish leadership, ditioned American Jews to see Jewish how is it expressed concretely in that survival as perpetually endangered, and leadership's perceptions of communal prob­ has also provided the core vocabulary for lems, its priorities for the allocation of any analysis of the Jewish condition. What communal resources and energies, and its might be called "Jewish survivalism" definitions of what it means to be a Jew on a personal behavioral level? Does "sur­ 1 See, e.g., Earl Rabb, "The End of Jewish vivalism" have clear and constant implica- Community Relations?" Journal of Jewish Com­ munal Service, Vol. 54 (Winter 1977), pp 107-15; Gerald B. Bubis, "Confronting Some Issues in Jewish 2 Cf. Daniel Elazar, Community and Polity: The Continuity: The Response of the Profession,'Vouma/ Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry. of Jewish Communal Service, Vol. 55 (Sept. 1978), Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of pp. 10-22. America, 1976, pp. 287ff.

291 JOURNAL OF JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICE

tions in these areas which will enable us to of a "good Jew." speak not only in broad terms of a "turning The basic commitment of these young inward," but to define the specific patterns leaders to Jewish survival and continuity is of concern likely to shape the communal vigorous and virtually unanimous. More agenda and of Jewish identity likely to be than 96 percent strongly agree that it is reflected among community leaders? important that there always be a Jewish The empirical data which I wish to use in people (fewer than 1 percent disagree).4 90 examining the dimensions and implica­ percent of the young leaders also assert that tions of "Jewish survivalism" as the opera­ without Jewish religion the Jewish people tive ideology of contemporary communal could not survive. We can, therefore, anti­ leaders are drawn from a survey of approxi­ cipate that the survival agenda of these mately 230 participants in leadership young leaders will reflect in some way a development programs sponsored by local concern for cultural and spiritual as well as Jewish Federations or by the Council of physical continuity (though to what extent Jewish Federations and United Jewish and how, are questions of interest). At the Appeal.3 Although few in this group same time, the commitment to Jewish (median age = mid-thirties) could be survival among the respondents is accom­ regarded as communal leaders of influence panied by a widely shared perception that today, they constitute an important focus such survival is threatened today. Nearly of study for two reasons, 1) the likelihood 85 percent of the young leaders surveyed that a substantial number will be important believe that the world is still not ready to let community (if not national) leaders in the Jews live in peace, and a similar percentage future, and 2) the fact that they have been regard assimilation as the greatest current selected and formally socialized by the threat to Jewish survival. How strongly established communal system, thereby their commitment to survival and this providing insight into its translation of the perception of its endangerment from with­ "survivalist" ideology into specific values out and within affects the outlook of these and norms. The respondents in the survey leaders on Jewish problems, priorities, and do not constitute a scientific sample of the norms can be seen by looking at their total population of young Jewish leaders responses in these areas in greater detail. but they do appear to be broadly repre­ sentative demographically and sociologi­ Problems Facing the Jewish Community cally of the moderately to very active As part of the survey, the respondents segment of that population. The instru­ were given a list of eighteen suggested ment used in the survey was a closed-ended problems facing the American Jewish questionnaire filled out by the participants community, and were asked to rate each as covering a number of aspects of Jewish "very serious," "moderately serious," "a background, attitudes, and behavior. In­ cluded in the questionnaire were three 4 By way of comparison, 70.2 percent of the sections dealing specifically with percep­ respondents in the National Jewish Population tions of communal problems, priorities for Study, the survey of a representative sample of all communal activity, and characterizations American Jews conducted in 1970, strongly agreed with a virtually identical statement; approximately 11 percent of that sample expressed either disagreement 3 Further discussion about the survey, its admin­ with the statement or were not sure of their attitude. istration, the groups polled, and additional results can Fred Massarik, Jewish Identity: Facts for Planning. be found in my article "Emerging Leadership in the New York: Council of Jewish Fedrations, 1974, p. 18. American Jewish Community," in the American Whether these figures would be different for a Jewish Year Book, Vol. 81. New York: American comparable sample a decade later is, of course, a Jewish Committee, forthcoming. matter for speculation.

292 WOOCHER

problem, but not a particularly serious (in percentages of the total number re­ one," or "not a problem" (a box for "don't sponding), ranked from that regarded col­ know" was also provided). Table 1 shows lectively as "most serious" to "least the ratings given for each of the problems serious."

TABLE 1 — VS = very serious problem SERIOUSNESS OF PROBLEMS MS = moderately serious problem FACING THE AMERICAN N = not a problem JEWISH COMMUNITY U = uncertain P = a problem, but not a particularly serious one

Percent Rating the Percent Rating the Rank* Problem Problem as Rank* Problem Problem as VS MS P N U VS MS P N U 1. the conflict between 11. decline in the im­ Israel and its portance of religious neighbors 97 3 institutions in American 2. the treatment of Jews Jewish life 29 38 24 4 4 in the Soviet Union 88 12 12. declining levels of 3. high rate of inter­ religious observance marriage 72 21 4 2 2 by Jews 24 44 26 5 1 4. alienation of youth from Jewish life 72 18 7 2 1 13. inadequate services 5. anti-Semitism in for the Jewish elderly 20 30 29 11 9 the U.S. 54 32 12 1 14. insufficient Jewish content in programs 6. low levels of parti­ sponsored by Jewish cipation in Jewish organizations 19 33 19 21 8 communal activities 53 32 12 1 1

7. low Jewish birth-rate 43 27 22 6 2 15. inadequate rabbis 21 22 23 22 12

8. assimilation of Jews 16. lack of unity among to American life­ Jewish religious styles and values 39 29 21 10 1 denominations 17 26 31 20 6 9. low levels of Jewish knowledge among lay 17. discrimination leaders of the against women in Jewish life 11 24 34 24 6 Jewish community 34 34 30 9 3 18. lack of democracy in 10. inadequate Jewish schools 35 23 17 15 9 Jewish communal life II 12 28 32 16

•Rank was determined by assigning point values to :h of the responses (VS - 3, MS = 2, P = 1, N and U = 0) and totalling the points for each problem. The prol m with the highest number of total points is ranked #1 and so on. Several features of the responses stand problems the Arab-Israeli conflict and the out. The most notable of these is the treatment of Soviet Jews indicates that consistently serious rating given to those their commitment to Jewish survival is problems which do relate most immedi­ global and attuned to what appear to be the ately and directly to the survival of Jews most imminent threats to Jewish security and Jewry. That these young leaders are and continuity. Beyond this, Israel's most united in regarding as "very serious" security and, more recently, the fate of

293 JOURNAL OF JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICE

Soviet Jewry, have become symbols of whole, however, the problems which are Jewish survival as such which are invested generally regarded as least serious seem to with tremendous emotional import. Thus, be those which have the least apparent even though they could hardly be regarded immediate connection to Jewish physical as problems of the American Jewish com­ and spiritual survival. (In some instances, munity, the fate of Israel and Soviet Jewry of course, the responses to those items may is the symbolic touchstone of contem­ also represent a rejection of the implication porary Jewish survival anxiety, and is, that the purported condition in fact exists, therefore, considered a most serious prob­ e.g., that Jewish content in programming is lems for an American Jewish community insufficient, that rabbis are inadequate, or whose raison d'etre is Jewish survival. that women are discriminated against). In Significantly, among the roster of prob­ sum, the survey results indicate that the lems afflicting American Jewry itself, it is commitment of these young leaders to again those which touch directly on the Jewish survival is reflected in especially issue of basic demographic and institu­ acute concern about those problems of tional survival which are most often Jewish life which pose basic physical, selected as the most serious. Intermarriage, demographic, and identity-related threats alienation of Jewish youth, anti-Semitism, to Jewish continuity, here and abroad. low levels of participation in communal Given this depth and focus of concern, it is activities, low birthrate—all of these are logical to ask how the survey respondents apparently regarded with greatest concern feel the endangered community should because they so obviously threaten the direct its energies, i.e., what the priorities continued existence per se of the American should be for communal action. Jewish community. Priorities for Communal Action Those problems which tend to affect the quality of American Jewish life, but not the The survey data on communal priorities actual physical survival and security of were compiled by asking the respondents American Jewry and the continuity of to select from a list of fourteen suggested communal activity, are collectively viewed- goals for communal action the four to as somewhat less serious than the seven which they would give the highest and the listed above. This does not mean that they four to which they would give the lowest are not seen as real problems by a large priority (leaving six in the "middle" majority of the young leaders. Even the category). The results on this question are supposed lack of democracy in Jewish summarized in Table 2, with the priorities communal life, the least seriously regarded, listed in rank order. is considered a problem by more than half An examination of these results reveals of the respondents. And, in keeping with that the survival concerns which domi­ their professed belief that religion is a key nated the respondents' perceptions of factor in insuring Jewish survival and that communal problems are also evident in assimilation is a significant threat to it, their choices of priorities. As might be sizable majorities of those surveyed do anticipated, based on their assessment of consider the adoption of American life­ problems facing the community, financial styles and values, low levels of Jewish support of Israel wins overwhelming en­ knowledge among Jewish leaders, inade­ dorsement from these young leaders as a quate schools, a decline in the importance high priority for communal action (first of religious institutions, and declining overall) with political support for Israel levels of religious observance to be at least also rated among the four highest by more moderately serious problems. On the than 40 percent of those surveyed (ranked

294 WOOCHER

TABLE 2 — fifth overall). Support for Jewish educa­ COMMUNAL PRIORITIES tion and culture is selected as a high priority by more than three-fifths of the H = High Priority respondents, again a choice which is con­ L = Low Priority sistent with the fact that 90 percent of the Percent young leaders agree with the proposition Ranking that "Jewish education is the best means of the Goal insuring Jewish survival." The relatively Rank* Proposed Goal as high rankings given to defense against anti- H L Semitism (fourth), support for religious 1. to provide financial support activities and institutions (sixth), help for Israel 72 1 for other Jewish communities abroad 2. to support Jewish education seventh), and increasing participation in and culture 64 3 Jewish communal activities (eighth) are all

3. to provide social and welfare intelligible in terms of the survival value of services for Jews in need 51 2 these goals.

4. to defend Jews against anti- In one respect, however, the results of Semitism and discrimination 41 3 this section of the survey do suggest that something more than survival value itself 5. to provide political support enters into the calculus of these young for Israel 42 13 leaders in determining priorities. More 6. to support Jewish religious than 50 percent of the respondents view the activities and institutions 25 10 provision of social and welfare services to 7. to help Jewish communities Jews in need as among the four highest in other countries 24 9 priorities for the community (ranked 3rd overall). This high ranking reflects the 8. to increase participation in persistence of the philanthropic thrust Jewish community activities 19 18 which has been part of the Federation 9. to promote harmonious relations movement's self-definition from its incep­ between Jews and non-Jews 14 23 tion. Likewise, the emphasis on financial 10. to promote unity among support of Israel represents an endorse­ American Jews 17 31 ment of the long-established UJA and

11. to promote Jewish interests Jewish Welfare Fund emphasis.) There is in American society 6 41 reason to suspect, however, that more than philanthropic motivation or acceptance of 12. to promote the extension of traditional institutional priorities is in­ civil rights and social justice volved in the high priority given to social in American society 11 47 and welfare services for Jews in need. Over 13. to provide social and welfare 95 percent of these young leaders accept the services for anyone in need 4 70 proposition that "every Jew is responsible 14. to support leisure and in some measure for the well-being of every recreational activities other Jew." Thus, the concern for helping for Jews 2 80 other Jews—in the United States, Israel, or •Rank was determined by subtracting the per­ other countries—reflects a sense of Jewish centage rating the goal as a "Low" priority from the solidarity and mutual responsibility which percentage rating it as a "High" priority, and ranking complements the conviction that Jewish the item scores obtained. survival must be assured. Both commit-

295 JOURNAL OF JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICE

merits, in a sense, bespeak a basic identi­ The results of this survey would appear fication with the collective fate of the to confirm the suggestion that among Jewish people, an identification which is communally active Jews today there is experienced by these young leaders as substantial consensus that Jewish group mandating action to insure both the con­ survival and welfare, rather than integra­ tinuity of the collective and the security and tion within or modification of American welfare of its individual members. society, are the primary collective tasks of The clear line of distinction here remains the hour. At the same time, however, there the essentially intra-communal focus of all are limits to this "survivalist" orientation, of those priorities most frequently ranked revealed both in this leadership develop­ high by the survey respondents. Several of ment study and in previous research. the suggested goals for action which are Despite their commitment to Jewish sur­ among the lowest ranked also involved vival and solidarity, many leaders are not human welfare oriented activities, but prepared to challenge elements of the implied a Jewish communal role within or modern Jewish condition—notably the in relationship to the larger society which ethos of individualism and voluntarism was evidently not perceived widely to be which permits choice of a Jewish lifestyle to equally mandated. It should be noted, be treated as a purely personal decision— however, that the "turn inward" endorsed that may in fact be in tension with their by these leadership development partici­ "survivalist" goal. "We are one" is a pants is not purely or narrowly self- powerful "survivalist" slogan, but actively interested. By and large, the survey re­ "promoting unity among American Jews" spondents regard the concept of promoting is consistently rated a rather low priority Jewish interests in American society as at (tenth out of fourteen in the survey), largely best a goal worthy of modest priority. because it appears to carry the implication Likewise, they are substantially united in that the freedom and diversity of American downgrading the importance of supporting Jews might in some way be limited. leisure and recreational activities for Jews. Thus, what these young leaders appear to obtained from the survey. desire is an organized Jewish community It is also interesting to compare the priorities of these leadership development participants with those which is genuinely devoted to promoting of professional Jewish communal workers as indi­ the security and welfare of all Jews and to cated in a 1973 survey commissioned by the Con­ the continuity of the Jewish tradition. They ference of Jewish Communal Service. In that survey, are little concerned not only about an the listed goals (or activities) were somewhat different activist communal role in the larger from those in the leadership development survey, but society, but also about those aspects of the pattern of responses was strikingly similar in many intra-communal activity which do not ways. In order, the Jewish communal workers sur­ directly promote Jewish survival or veyed ranked fundraising for Israel, Jewish educa­ welfare.5 tion, fundraising for American Jewish agencies and causes, social services for Jews, and assisting the 5 This pattern of priorities appears to be by no Jewish poor as their top five priorities. From the means unique to the specific group of young leaders bottom up, their lowest priorities were social services surveyed. Over the course of the past several years, a on a non-sectarian basis, social action to improve similar exercise in priority setting has been used with U.S. society, health care, improving intergroup more than half a dozen other Federation related relations, and social action to improve the security of groups, including not only leadership development Jews. groups, but also board members and presidents of Report of the Commission on Structure, Function, community Federations. The composite priorities and Priorities of the Organized Jewish Community. rankings for these groups are remarkably consistent, New York: Conference of Jewish Communal Service, and the overall order is virtually identical with that 1973.

296 WOOCHER

TABLE 3 - IMAGE OF THE GOOD JEW E = Essential U = Undesirable D = Desirable DK = Dont know ND = Makes no difference

Percentage of Percentage of Respondents Believing Respondents Believing that to be a "good that to be a "good Jew" the item is Jew" the item is

Rank* Item E D ND U DK Rank* Item E D ND U DK

Accept being a Jew 13. Promote civic and not try to hide it 90 10 betterment and improvement in Lead an ethical and the community 24 54 18 — 4 moral life 77 22 1 14. Gain the respect of Marry within the Christian neighbors 26 47 23 1 3 Jewish faith 68 27 15. Help the under­ Support Israel 64 34 privileged improve Contribute to Jewish their lot 15 65 15 1 1 philanthropies 56 42 16. Work for equality Know the funda­ of Blacks and other mentals of Judaism 48 50 minorities 11 56 27 3 3

Belong to a 17. Attend weekly synagogue or temple 38 55 services 8 58 31 3

Attend services on 18. Observe the dietary high holidays 36 51 13 laws 5 48 44 — 2

9. Support Zionism 41 40 14 19. Have mostly Jewish friends 10. Belong to Jewish 4 33 54 organizations 20. Be a liberal on 26 64 10 Be well versed in political and 11. Jewish history economic issues 4 23 55 6 10 and culture 22 72 6 21. Give Jewish candi­ Support all dates for political 12. humanitarian causes 24 58 15 1 2 office preference 4 24 47 19 5

less than one percent

•Rank was determined by assigning a point value for each response (E = +2, D = +1, ND and DK = 0, U = -1) and summing the points for each item.

297 JOURNAL OF JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICE

(Indeed, when the concept of "developing day services, all of which are viewed as standards" to guide the involvement of "essential" by more than a third of the Jews in American social, economic, and survey respondents. Those behaviors political life was suggested as a possible which are oriented specifically toward the communal goal to several groups of Federa­ larger society—support for humanitarian tion activists, it was unanimously ranked causes, gaining the respect of Christian last and usually repudiated altogether as neighbors, promoting civic betterment, undesirable and inappropriate.) The ques­ helping the underprivileged—are all ranked tion is thus raised of whether the ideology below the Jewish group-oriented behaviors of "Jewish survivalism" is perceived as listed as "essentials" for defining a "good carrying prescriptive norms on the indi­ Jew." vidual as well as the communal level, and if There is, therefore, considerable warrant so, what these norms in fact encompass. for concluding that these leadership de­ velopment participants define priorities for Image of the "Good Jew" the individual Jew in much the same way as In order to explore this question, the they define these for the community as a survey respondents were asked to complete whole. What makes a "good Jew" are, first a slightly modified version of the "Good and foremost, those behaviors which Jew" exercise developed by Marshall promote Jewish group survival and Sklare and utilized in his Lakeville study6 welfare. Only secondarily is the "good Jew" and subsequently by several other re­ defined by his relationships with and con­ searchers. In this exercise, respondents tributions to non-Jews. It might also be were asked to rate 21 characteristics as noted that, as we found with regard to either "essential," "desirable," "making no perceptions of communal problems, the difference," or "undesirable" in their por­ more immediate the survival orientation of traits of the "good Jew." Table 3 sum­ the behavior, the higher it appears to be marizes the results of the leadership devel­ ranked. Thus, endogamy, support for opment participants study (with the Israel, and philanthropic contribution are behaviors/attitudes ranked from most to considered "essential" by many more least strongly endorsed). respondents than are "being well versed in Based on these results, it would appear Jewish history and culture," attending that the paramount element in defining a services weekly, or observing Kashrut. And "good Jew" for these young leaders is again, there are some intra-Jewish beha­ active identification with the Jewish viors—having mostly Jewish friends and people, community, and religious tradi­ giving preference to Jewish political candi­ tion. There is substantial agreement that a dates—which are widely viewed neither as "good Jew" must openly identify as a Jew essential nor especially desirable, possibly and must lead an ethical life. Beyond these because they smack too much of purely general characteristics, it is noteworthy chauvinistic, rather than survival- and that the primary requisites for "good welfare-oriented, Jewishness. The prime Jewishness" are defined as endogamy, requisites of "good Jewishness" are largely support for Israel, contributing to Jewish those of active Jewish self-identification philanthropies, knowing the fundamentals and communal support, not behaviors of Judaism, supporting Zionism, belonging which reflect a particular system of Jewish to a synagogue, and attending high holy living. Many of the elements of a more extensive, religiously-oriented, discipline 6 Marshall Sklare and Joseph Greenblum, Jewish are endorsed as desirable by large numbers Identity on the Suburban Frontier, 2nd edition. of the respondents, but the "bottom line" Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

298 WOOCHER

for these young leaders remains those of the "good Jew" even if not "essential" attitudes and behaviors which meet the ones. There is no wholesale abandonment threats to Jewish physical and cultural of the ideal of Jewish support for all survival which they perceive and which humanitarian causes, for civic betterment, manifest the sense of Jewish solidarity or for help for the under-privileged. Still, it which they espouse. is clear that a majority of these Jews do not This leaves the question of whether equate "good Jewishness" explicitly with "turning inward" in this context in fact social activism, and especially not with implies a "turning away" from the larger political liberalism, and anywhere from 15- society. It should be noted that many of the 25 percent apparently feel that broadscale young leaders surveyed do regard active humanitarian or civic activity is irrelevant pariticpation in and contribution to the to the quality of one's "Jewishness." larger society as "desirable" characteristics The significance of these figures can be TABLE 4 - COMPARISON OF GROUPS COMPLETING THE "GOOD JEW" SCHEDULE

L = Lakeville study sample LD = Leadership development participants R = Reform temple members study sample survey group Percentage of Percentage of group sur­ group sur­ veyed rating veyed rating the item as the item as "essential" "essential" to being a to being a Item "good Jew" Item "good Jew"

L R LD L R LD Accept being a Jew and not try Gain the respect of Christian to hide it 85 80 90 neighbors 59 23 26

Lead an ethical and moral life 93 79 77 Help the underprivileged improve their lot 58 32 15 Marry within the Jewish faith 23 24 68 Work for equality of blacks and Support Israel 21 37 64 other minorities** 44 20 11 Contribute to Jewish philanthropies 39 32 56 Attend weekly services 4 6 8 Know the fundamentals of Judaism 48 34 48 Observe the dietary laws 1 2 5 Belong to a synagogue or temple 31 31 38 Have mostly Jewish friends 1 2 4 Attend services on the high holidays 24 29 36 Be a liberal on political and Support Zionism 7 13 41 economic issues 31 13 4

Belong to Jewish organizations 17 * 26 Give Jewish candidates for political office preference 1 3 4 Be well versed in Jewish history and culture 17 15 22 *not asked **in the Lakeville and Reform studies this was Support all humanitarian causes 67 43 24 worded as "work for equality for Negroes"

Promote civic betterment and Source for Lakeville and Reform study figures: improvement in the community 67 40 24 Reform Is a Verb, pp. 34-35.

299 JOURNAL OF JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICE

assessed somewhat more fully by com­ behaviors. The group of Reform temple paring them with results obtained in members surveyed by Fein et al. generally administrations of the "Good Jew" falls somewhere in between the Lakeville schedule to other groups of Jews. Two and leadership development groups. A major studies are available for this purpose: smaller percentage cite social and civic Professor Sklare's Lakeville study (for activism as essentials for being a "good which data was gathered in 1957-58) and Jew" than among the Lakeville sample, but the study of Reform Temple members they are not notably more inclined to rank conducted in 1970 under the direction of endogamy, support for Israel, and Jewish Professor Leonard Fein which was pub­ philanthropic activity as requisites for lished in Reform is a Verb.1 Unfortunately, "good Jewishness" than were the Lakeville neither of the groups of respondents polled Jews. for these studies is entirely appropriate for For our purposes it is not really neces­ comparative purposes: Sklare's sample is sary to speculate about the full range of probably not representative of the total factors accounting for the differences American Jewish population (even in 1957) among the groups, or even about the and the Reform sample obviously was not. representativeness of the various defini­ Both studies, in addition, were conducted tional patterns, either at the time of the before the "survivalist" turn had become surveys or presently. It is sufficient to fully manifest. Thus, drawing conclusions recognize that the leadership development about either longitudinal trends or participants do, by and large, define the "Federation/ UJA" vs. general Jewish atti­ "essentials" of "good Jewishness" in terms tudes and values is risky at best. Still, the which are far more oriented toward acts of comparison is of interest. (See Table 4 for a Jewish identification and group welfare summary comparison.) The contrast, for and far less oriented toward civic partici­ example, between the characterizations of pation and social idealism than have (and a "good Jew" by the Lakeville sample and quite possibly do) other groups of Ameri­ the present leadership development group can Jews. Thus, "Jewish survivalism"as an is striking. ideological frame through which to view For the Lakeville Jews, the essentials of Jewish life is applied to normative defini­ being a "good Jew" were indeed defined in tions of personal as well as collective terms of social and civic activism. The Jewish behavior. For these young leaders, items considered most critical by the the key problems and priorities of the current young leaders—support for Israel, Jewish community are those which promise Jewish philanthropy, endogamy—were far to affect the basic survival, security, and less frequently regarded as such by the welfare of the Jewish people and the con­ Lakeville Jews. The leadership develop­ tinuity of its tradition; and the funda­ ment survey group also tended to rate other mental requisites of being a "good Jew" are specifically Jewish behaviors—belonging those acts which are most likely to contri­ to the synagogue, attending high holiday bute to that survival, security, and welfare. services, being well versed in Jewish history and culture—somewhat more highly than Discussion did the Lakeville group, but the major At the outset of this paper, we raised the distinction lies in the almost total revalu­ question of how deeply the ideology of ation of inward vs. outward directed "Jewish survivalism" had indeed pene­

7 Leonard J. Fein, et al., Reform Is a Verb. New trated and how it might be reflected in the York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, self-definitions and perspectives of 1972. emerging leaders in the Jewish community.

300 WOOCHER

The survey results we have examined leave must surely be accounted a good thing. The little doubt that the penetration has been shift from what might be termed a "philan­ almost complete, and that it is indeed thropic" to a "Jewish self-expressive" reflected in a "turning inward" which in motivation for communal leadership has terms of both personal and communal made possible both a much broader and priorities leads away from concern with much more "Jewish" definition of the Jewish participation in the broader society intra-communal responsibilities of Federa­ toward a focus on those areas of Jewish tions and their constituent agencies. activity which have an immediate link to Although there may well still be a gap group survival. Relating this ideological between the high priority given verbally by turn to social experience—Israel's wars, Federation leaders to Jewish education the failures of the promise of 1960's and the realities of dollar allocations, there liberalism or to a deeper renewal of Jewish is no question that the young leaders consciousness on other levels—is a task surveyed are committed not only to Jewish which deserves extended discussion, but survival in physical terms, but to the cannot be attempted here. It must be proposition that Jewish culture and tra­ remembered as well that we are not dition must survive as well, and that both speaking for the most part about absolute education and religion are requisites for judgments—respondents were asked for a total Jewish continuity. It is difficult as well relative ordering of priorities, and do by to fault the evidently strong underlying and large see social and civic activism as at sense of Jewish mutual responsibility least desirable behaviors for the "good which underlies their priorities for com­ Jew. "8 But the data seem clear in indicating munal action. On the personal level, the that "survivalism" is the dominant opera­ importance which most of these young tive ideology of these young leaders, and leaders attach to overt behaviors mani­ that it has concrete implications in evalu­ festing identification with and commit­ ating problems, choosing priorities, and ment to the perpetuation of the Jewish establishing norms of Jewishness. Thus it is people, community, and tradition leads to appropriate to ask what implications these a definition of "good Jewishness" which is facts have for the American Jewish com­ decidedly Jewish in substance rather than a munity and for its future. mere translation of universalist ethics.

In most respects, the consolidation of Despite this generally positive evalua­ "Jewish survivalism" as the ideology of the tion some caveats about "Jewish sur­ future (and, in many instances, present) vivalism" may be inorder as well, and in leadership of American Jewish community three areas especially: Federations and associated organizations 1. Some of the strongest reservations 8 The conviction that these survey responses do not which have been expressed about the constitute a wholesale repudiation of the values of recent "turn inward" in Jewish communal social justice and of a Jewish role in their pursuit is life focus on the possible negative impacts strengthened by the fact that over three quarters of the which it may have for relations between the young leaders surveyed express agreement with the Jewish community and other groups in proposition that "Jews have a special responsibility to American society. The historical pattern of work for justice in the world." One may speculate, Jewish adjustment to the American envi­ indeed, that it is the sense of a historical mission which ronment has incorporated a significant makes Jewish ethnic and religious survival so impor­ tant to these young leaders. (See Woocher, op.cit.) dimension of "positive" assimilation: the Nevertheless, when it comes to concrete problems and assumption by individual Jews and by priorities, survival itself is the primary focus of communal organizations of an active role concern. in the political, economic, and cultural life

301 JOURNAL OF JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICE

of the larger society. Few would contest the for Jewish life. But it does pose the ironic claim that both Jews and American society danger that the intensity and focus of that as a whole have benefited from this leadership commitment may cause Jews activism. While it is readily understandable whose level of group identification is lower that anxiety over the corrosive effects of and whose aims in maintaining that identi­ "negative" assimilation on Jewish identity fication at all may be more personalized to and continuity (not to mention the threats feel alienated from community insti­ to Jewry on a worldwide basis) justify tutions. While national and community intensive concern for Jewish survival, we surveys indicate that most American Jews may question whether abandonment of a are happy to be Jewish and willing to sense of Jewish communal responsibility identify with other Jews, there can be little vis-a-vis the welfare of society as a whole doubt that many are not motivated to and of concern for the quality of relation­ invest the resources and energies necessary ships between Jews and non-Jews would be to sustain the survivalist commitments of salutary for either American Jewry or the leadership cadre. Will a community society. We must reiterate that neither the which de-emphasizes Jewish-supported reality of communal activity nor the leisure and recreation activities, which relative prioritizing reflected in the leader­ seems to be drifting away from concern for ship development survey indicates that a the image of the Jew in gentile society, wholesale retreat from these areas of which focuses so much attention on non- concern is under way. But with the focus American Jews, which is redefining the now so clearly on "Jewish survival" issues, meaning of "good Jewishness" in more maintaining the historically creative role of particularist terms, be perceived by such the organized Jewish community within individuals as a community in which they American society may demand greater have a real place? Will survivalism ulti­ attention from those segments of com­ mately mean fewer identified Jews? munal leadership who believe in the signifi­ Certainly, the answer to this potential cance of that role. In particular, profes­ problem is not to reduce the levels of sionals and lay leaders in the area of leadership commitment or modify their community relations need to define the conviction that Jewish continuity must be place, purposes, and priorities of com­ the number one priority for the organized munity relations and social activism within Jewish community. It is important, how­ the context of a survivalist ideological ever, for leadership iirthe community, both framework. lay and professional, to recognize that 2. A second potential problem—or, cultivating its own garden is not sufficient perhaps better, challenge—implicit in the to insure that the rhetoric of Jewish crystallization of a Jewish survivalist survivalism will be matched by the reality ideology among communal leaders is the of communal support for these aims. The possibility of a gap developing between experience of Jewish growth and Jewish these leaders and the Jewish population at activism is often powerful and seductive large. There is good reason to believe that (thankfully), but it can also be deceptive communal leaders, even in the so-called when those who undergo it forget that the "secular" sphere, constitute an elite within bulk of American Jewry has not yet shared the community in terms of their sense of it. Thus, leadership must be attentive to the Jewish solidarity and their commitment to need to bring the community with it, and in Jewish group continuity and to the con­ some measure, to stay with the community, tinuity of the Jewish tradition. On the as it seeks to develop and to implement a whole, this can only be accounted a boon program faithful to the mandates of its

302 WOOCHER

Jewish survivalist ideology. wish to impose upon ourselves in order to 3. The third concern which the em­ fulfill that meaning. The ideology of Jewish placement of "Jewish survivalism" as the survivalism remains largely a container operative ideology of the organized Jewish which must be filled with content. Much of community should raise for Jewish leader­ that content, I would reiterate, is already ship relates to the limitations of that implicit in the commitments and respon­ ideology itself. Again, there is no question sibilities which have been assumed by the that survivalism represents a positive and leaders of the survival-oriented com­ welcome level of Jewish commitment; munity. But this content needs to be drawn indeed, it might be seen as the base without out, to be shaped, to be critiqued, and to be which any other form of Jewish commit­ supplemented, and "survivalism" alone ment or ideology is valueless. But, as it has will not do that. To convince others, and been defined in the American context, possibly in the long run themselves, that "Jewish survivalism" is largely an ideology the struggle for survival is worthwhile, the of defense, attempting to forestall and leaders who have embraced the ideology of withstand the forces domestically and in "Jewish survivalism" must recognize the the world which threaten Jewish con­ need to transcend it. There will be a price in tinuity. As such, the question of "what pushing farther, a price paid perhaps in a for?," of defining the purposes (not the rebirth of controversy about goals and justification, for we do not need to "justify" means, and in the need for leaders to our desire to survive) of Jewish continuity, confront basic assumptions about the has still not received the sustained atten­ compatibility of Jewish survival and tion which eventually it must and deserves accustomed patterns of personal and col­ to receive. As a community, we do have lective behavior. This process, however, is some traditional, often unarticulated, central to the full maturation of the answers to that question of "what for?" American Jewish community and to the which are by no means to be rejected as validation of its leadership's devotion. starting points and which are often re­ The ideology of "Jewish survivalism" flected in the programs and activities of our does lead the Jewish community to "turn institutions. The Jewish people and inward." That turning inward need not, Judaism survive in order to stand for the however, be an exercise either in self- values of Tzedakah, Hesed, Shalom, centeredness or narcissism if the full Kedushah; in order to enrich the lives of dimensions of the challenge of survival in individuals, families, groups; in order to the contemporary world are understood witness for an image of man and of com­ and embraced. American Jewish com­ munity embodied in our tradition; in order munal leaders have now reached the point to preserve the lessons of a rich, often where we may no longer justifiably doubt painful and often glorious history. The the reality of intensity of their commitment challenge for a leadership committed to to Jewish continuity. Now, they must Jewish survival is to raise both the question assume the task of defining the purposes of purpose and these and other answers to and conditions of that continuity in a way that question to a level of consciousness which will strengthen the Jewish com­ which will permit us to move beyond munity and the place of that community in survival, and beyond identification, toward a world which we must believe also has a a new/ old understanding of the meaning of stake in Jewish survival. our endeavor and of the disciplines we may

303